Prosecution Must Elevate Its Case From Realm Of ‘May Be True’ To Plane Of ‘Must Be True: Orissa High Court

“Conviction based on failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law” – In a powerful reaffirmation of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court overturned the conviction of a man who had been serving a life sentence for the alleged rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl. The Division Bench of Justices S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash allowed the appeal filed by Baraju Mania @ Behera, holding that the conviction, rendered solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and a weak extrajudicial confession, could not be sustained in law. The Court found glaring procedural lapses, particularly the non-confrontation of incriminating evidence under Section 313 of the CrPC, and absence of scientific corroboration, rendering the prosecution’s case incomplete and unreliable.

“The prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to the plane of ‘must be true” – Court reiterates golden principles of circumstantial evidence

The Court emphasized that though the heinous offence of rape and murder had clearly occurred—as established by the medical and postmortem evidence—the identity of the perpetrator remained unproven in law. The deceased had died of asphyxia caused by violent compression of the neck, chest and abdomen, with visible signs of recent violent sexual intercourse. However, the case against the appellant was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and two alleged extrajudicial confessions which failed legal scrutiny.

Relying on established precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622), Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1991) 1 SCC 286, and Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra (1982) 2 SCC 351, the Court reminded that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete that no other hypothesis except guilt is possible. In this case, the chain was incomplete and several key links were legally suspect.

“Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence… surrounded by suspicious circumstances” – Court discards confessions not corroborated by record

One of the most damning findings by the High Court was the trial court’s reliance on an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before a co-villager (P.W.3) and a government doctor (P.W.11). However, the High Court found that P.W.3 had never stated this in his prior police statements, and no independent villager corroborated his account. Moreover, the medical officer’s records (Exhibit 9) contradicted his oral testimony in Court. The history recorded by the doctor mentioned that the appellant “denied involvement” and stated that he had merely seen the girl struggling and called villagers for help.

The Court strongly rebuked the trial court for relying on this uncorroborated and contradictory evidence:

“We are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of extrajudicial confession. The learned trial court was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 as well as P.W.11 relating to the extrajudicial confession.” [Para 11]

Further, the Court held that even if the confession was made, it could not be used against the appellant as it was never put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, violating core principles of natural justice:

“Conviction based on the failure of the accused to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law.” [Para 11]

“Presence at the scene is not guilt” – Court finds appellant’s conduct explained and corroborated

The prosecution had also relied on the appellant’s presence at the scene and his allegedly nervous behaviour to prove guilt. But the High Court found that the appellant had given a plausible and consistent explanation—that he saw the victim struggling and called villagers to help. This version was corroborated by P.W.7, who was declared hostile but maintained that the girl was crying for water and the appellant had responded.

Rejecting the inference of guilt from mere presence, the Court observed:

“When the spot in the case is an open place accessible to all, mere presence of the appellant at the crime scene is not enough to find him guilty, particularly when he has offered some explanation… corroborated by P.W.7.” [Para 13]

Even the alleged attempt to flee was not supported by any villager's testimony:

“None of the villagers have stated that the appellant was trying to run away and that they caught hold of him.” [Para 13]

No forensic evidence linking appellant to the crime

Another significant weakness in the prosecution’s case was the complete absence of scientific evidence linking the appellant to the offence. The Court noted that despite the seizure of his clothes and bodily samples, no blood, semen, or saliva was found on any of the materials:

“The chemical examination report and the serologist report are no way helpful to the prosecution.” [Para 14]

Thus, despite the established commission of a horrific crime, there was no conclusive evidence pointing to the appellant as the perpetrator.

Appellate Court Reverses Conviction After 20 Years, Reinforces Fundamental Fair Trial Standards

Concluding that the trial court had based its decision on speculation and procedural lapses, the High Court observed:

“The circumstances available on record do not form a complete chain so as to come to an irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant, who is the author of the crime…” [Para 15]

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Sections 376 and 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant. The bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled and the appellant was discharged from all liabilities.

Before parting, the Court placed on record its appreciation for both the defence counsel Mr. Arun Kumar Das and the Additional Government Advocate Mr. Jateswar Nayak for their assistance.

Date of Decision: 17 December 2025